Menu
▾
▴
notion-devel
|
From: Arnout E. <no...@bz...> - 2011-10-30 19:29:46
|
Hi, The previous ion3 packager for Debian is no longer using it, so he's not interested in maintaining a notion package. I've started on porting his ion3 packaging work to create a notion package. This is checked into the 'collaborative maintenance'-infrastructure at Debian: Basically you can git clone ssh://<username>@git.debian.org/git/collab-maint/notion.git and use 'git-buildpackage' to build the notion package. Currently not lintian-clean and untested. Anyone interested in helping out? Kind regards, Arnout |
|
From: Philipp H. <phi...@un...> - 2011-10-31 10:35:14
|
Hi, are you aware that there is a newer Debian package available from http://snapshot.debian.org/package/ion3/20090110-3/ (Unpack and patch it with $ dpkg-source -x dpkg-source -x ion3_20090110-3.dsc in a folder containing the three files.) I think this would be a better place to start. It uses newer versions of debhelper etc., getting rid of some deprecation warnings, and it doesn't seem to have the checks on whether the version being installed is up-to-date which Tuomo was requiring at some point (look at template and notion.postinst in your tree). What's the policy on pwm3? Is this supposed to be renamed to pwm3plus everywere? Lintian and others don't seem to be too happy about your choice of version number because they consider it to be older than the Ion3 versions (the leading 3 is the problem). Maybe just drop it? Regards, Philipp |
|
From: Arnout E. <no...@bz...> - 2011-10-31 12:52:58
|
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:35:04AM +0100, Philipp Hartwig wrote: > are you aware that there is a newer Debian package available from > http://snapshot.debian.org/package/ion3/20090110-3/ No, I wasn't, thanks! > I think this would be a better place to start. Obviously > it doesn't seem to have the checks on whether the version being installed is > up-to-date which Tuomo was requiring at some point (look at template and > notion.postinst in your tree). Indeed we don't need those anymore > What's the policy on pwm3? Is this supposed to be renamed to pwm3plus > everywere? Do we want to keep pwm at all? Or do we want to drop it entirely? > Lintian and others don't seem to be too happy about your choice of version > number because they consider it to be older than the Ion3 versions (the > leading 3 is the problem). Maybe just drop it? I'm not sure - using *just* the date as the version would get us into trouble when we ever want a 'Notion 4' (a major rewrite or something). Having seperate packages for those (like 'ion2' and 'ion3' previously) would be something I'd probably like to avoid. OTOH if it really warrants a new major version number perhaps it should allow users to have both installed alongside each other. What do you think? Kind regards, Arnout |
|
From: Josef 'J. S. <je...@jo...> - 2011-10-31 13:33:56
|
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 01:52:46PM +0100, Arnout Engelen wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:35:04AM +0100, Philipp Hartwig wrote: > > are you aware that there is a newer Debian package available from > > http://snapshot.debian.org/package/ion3/20090110-3/ > > No, I wasn't, thanks! > > > I think this would be a better place to start. > > Obviously > > > it doesn't seem to have the checks on whether the version being installed is > > up-to-date which Tuomo was requiring at some point (look at template and > > notion.postinst in your tree). > > Indeed we don't need those anymore > > > What's the policy on pwm3? Is this supposed to be renamed to pwm3plus > > everywere? > > Do we want to keep pwm at all? Or do we want to drop it entirely? FWIW, I knew that there was something in there called pwm, but I never used it/looked into it. I suspect many others did the same. > > Lintian and others don't seem to be too happy about your choice of version > > number because they consider it to be older than the Ion3 versions (the > > leading 3 is the problem). Maybe just drop it? > > I'm not sure - using *just* the date as the version would get us into trouble > when we ever want a 'Notion 4' (a major rewrite or something). Having seperate > packages for those (like 'ion2' and 'ion3' previously) would be something I'd > probably like to avoid. OTOH if it really warrants a new major version number > perhaps it should allow users to have both installed alongside each other. What > do you think? I noticed the odd looking version number too. I'd be for notion$X-$Y, where $X is the major number (= 3 at the moment) and $Y is some sort of minor version number (either a counter or a timestamp). Jeff. -- Keyboard not found! Press F1 to enter Setup |
|
From: Philipp H. <phi...@un...> - 2011-10-31 13:39:14
|
> > I think this would be a better place to start. > > Obviously Actually the diff between the two debian folders is rather small. It should be straightforward to just merge it with the changes you have already done. > > What's the policy on pwm3? Is this supposed to be renamed to pwm3plus > > everywere? > > Do we want to keep pwm at all? Or do we want to drop it entirely? Personally I had never even heard of pwm3 to this day. The man page says that it is identical to Ion3 with the only difference lying in the default configuration file. I certainly don't see a reason to ship a separate binary file for that but that's just my personal opinion. There is a discussion about the same question here: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=261076 Maybe dropping pwm3 but documenting the configuration necessary to achieve its behavior with notion is the right thing to do? > > Lintian and others don't seem to be too happy about your choice of version > > number because they consider it to be older than the Ion3 versions (the > > leading 3 is the problem). Maybe just drop it? > > I'm not sure - using *just* the date as the version would get us into trouble > when we ever want a 'Notion 4' (a major rewrite or something). Having seperate > packages for those (like 'ion2' and 'ion3' previously) would be something I'd > probably like to avoid. OTOH if it really warrants a new major version number > perhaps it should allow users to have both installed alongside each other. What > do you think? How about just dropping the Ion3 history from the changelog and write "Inital release. Based on the Ion3 package, version 20090110-3, by Ben Hutchings." or something like that. This would give us complete liberty in the version numbers. Are you against version numbers like 3.0? I would leave the name at notion for the moment, we would then still have the option of releasing a notion4 package with all files renamed to notion4 if that looks like the reasonable thing to do at some point in the future. Regards, Philipp |
|
From: Philipp H. <phi...@un...> - 2011-10-31 19:14:08
|
> Actually the diff between the two debian folders is rather small. It should > be straightforward to just merge it with the changes you have already done. I've done this but my message with the patch is awaiting moderator approval because apparently it was too big. (Just so that nobody else bothers to redo the work.) |
|
From: Matthieu M. <Mat...@gr...> - 2011-11-01 16:30:33
|
Philipp Hartwig <phi...@un...> writes: > Personally I had never even heard of pwm3 to this day. The man page says > that it is identical to Ion3 with the only difference lying in the default > configuration file. PWM was Tuomo's first baby. It is said to be the first window-manager including the "tab" features, but wasn't a tiling window-manager. Then, Tuomo worked on ion (tiling mode), and then the floating windows were added to ion (IIRC, with ion2), so ion became a superset of PWM. I think including the PWM binary in the distribution was essentially a way to emphasize the beauty and generality of ion, saying "hey, look, PWM can be implemented on top of ion by just tweaking the config!". I don't think it is technically relevant to keep it today. -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/ |
|
From: Philipp H. <phi...@un...> - 2011-10-31 19:06:40
Attachments:
fix-postinst-error.diff
rebase-to-latest-ionpackage.diff
|
> Actually the diff between the two debian folders is rather small. It should
> be straightforward to just merge it with the changes you have already done.
I've done this, see the attached patch. (The patch
debian/patches/101_ion-3-20090526.diff has appararently already been
applied to notion.)
This looks pretty good:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$ fakeroot dpkg-buildpackage -uc -b > /dev/null
dpkg-source --before-build notion
debian/rules clean
No patch removed
debian/rules build
obj.c: In function ‘comp_fun’:
obj.c:130:14: warning: ISO C forbids conversion of function pointer to object pointer type [-pedantic]
obj.c:131:14: warning: ISO C forbids conversion of function pointer to object pointer type [-pedantic]
obj.c: In function ‘lookup_dynfun’:
obj.c:192:20: warning: ISO C forbids conversion of function pointer to object pointer type [-pedantic]
obj.c:192:41: warning: ISO C forbids conversion of function pointer to object pointer type [-pedantic]
obj.c:196:20: warning: ISO C forbids conversion of function pointer to object pointer type [-pedantic]
obj.c:196:40: warning: ISO C forbids conversion of function pointer to object pointer type [-pedantic]
rb.c: In function ‘rb_inserti’:
rb.c:613:48: warning: cast to pointer from integer of different size [-Wint-to-pointer-cast]
modules.c: In function ‘get_module_fptr’:
modules.c:104:12: warning: ISO C forbids conversion of object pointer to function pointer type [-pedantic]
ion-statusd.c: In function ‘statusd_getloadavg’:
ion-statusd.c:304:5: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘getloadavg’ [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
debian/rules binary
dpkg-gencontrol: warning: package notion-dev: unused substitution variable ${Notion:ApiVersion}
dpkg-genchanges -b >../notion_3-2011102900-1_amd64.changes
dpkg-genchanges: warning: the current version (3-2011102900-1) is earlier than the previous one (20080825-1)
dpkg-genchanges: binary-only upload - not including any source code
dpkg-source --after-build notion
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's what Lintian has to say about the package:
W: notion: latest-debian-changelog-entry-without-new-version
W: notion: binary-without-manpage usr/sbin/install-notion-cfg
W: notion: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/pwm3plus
The second trivial patch removes a postinst error. With this I'm able to
install the package.
Regards,
Philipp
|
|
From: Olof J. <ol...@et...> - 2011-10-31 12:31:35
Attachments:
signature.asc
|
On 2011-10-30 20:29 +0100, Arnout Engelen wrote: > Basically you can git clone > > ssh://<username>@git.debian.org/git/collab-maint/notion.git Or git://git.debian.org/git/collab-maint/notion.git if you don't have an alioth account. > and use 'git-buildpackage' to build the notion package. Currently not > lintian-clean and untested. > > Anyone interested in helping out? I'd be happy to help out if you need any assistance. I think the lintian error can be solved easily, since the package no longer uses debconf. Just remove the template file (debian/notion.templates), the po directory and comment out line 127 (dh_installdebconf -a) of debian/rules. There's also a problem with undocumented build-dependencies (xinerama and xrandr). -- --------------------------------------------------------------- | Olof Johansson | | http://stdlib.se/ | --------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
From: Arnout E. <no...@bz...> - 2011-11-13 11:58:44
|
Hello, The package appears to be getting into fairly good shape. If you have amd64: https://sourceforge.net/projects/notion/files/ On other architectures, you can clone the packaging repo: http://anonscm.debian.org/git/collab-maint/notion.git and run 'git-buildpackage' to produce a package for your architecture. If anyone is or knows a DD that might be interested in reviewing and sponsoring this package that would be great! Kind regards, Arnout On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 08:29:35PM +0100, Arnout Engelen wrote: > Hi, > > The previous ion3 packager for Debian is no longer using it, so he's not > interested in maintaining a notion package. > > I've started on porting his ion3 packaging work to create a notion package. > This is checked into the 'collaborative maintenance'-infrastructure at Debian: > > Basically you can git clone > > ssh://<username>@git.debian.org/git/collab-maint/notion.git > > and use 'git-buildpackage' to build the notion package. Currently not > lintian-clean and untested. > > Anyone interested in helping out? > > > Kind regards, > > Arnout > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Get your Android app more play: Bring it to the BlackBerry PlayBook > in minutes. BlackBerry App World™ now supports Android™ Apps > for the BlackBerry® PlayBook™. Discover just how easy and simple > it is! http://p.sf.net/sfu/android-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Notion-devel mailing list > Not...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/notion-devel |
|
From: Philipp H. <phi...@un...> - 2011-11-15 12:55:45
|
> If you have amd64: > > https://sourceforge.net/projects/notion/files/ Thanks, I'm using this right now and it seems to work well. lintian still doesn't seem to like the version number, wasn't that your motivation for switching from 3-.. to 3+..? I've requested to be able to participate in the collab-maint repository using [1] but I never heard back from that. But I see you have already merged the patch so it doesn't really matter. Regards, Philipp https://alioth.debian.org/project/request.php?group_id=30755 |
|
From: Arnout E. <no...@bz...> - 2011-11-15 17:05:16
|
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 01:55:35PM +0100, Philipp Hartwig wrote: > > If you have amd64: > > > > https://sourceforge.net/projects/notion/files/ > > Thanks, I'm using this right now and it seems to work well. Good to hear > lintian still doesn't seem to like the version number That should only be a problem the first upload: it's comparing the version number of the previous 'ion3' package to the version number of this 'notion' package, which are in different formats. > wasn't that your motivation for switching from 3-.. to 3+..? http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/first.en.html#namever specifies upstream versions should 'consist only of alphanumerics (0-9A-Za-z), plus (+), tildes (~), and periods (.)' and start with a digit. Discussed it on #debian-mentors, this seems to be the sane way to do it. > I've requested to be able to participate in the collab-maint repository > using [1] but I never heard back from that. But I see you have already > merged the patch so it doesn't really matter. Hmm I don't think I can add you, guess only admins can. Arnout |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X